Factor’s Deciding Scientists’ Choice for Publishing Papers in E-Journals: A Research Study of Aerospace Scientists and Engineers of Bangalore

(1)

Factor’s Deciding Scientists’ Choice for Publishing Papers

in E-Journals: A Research Study of Aerospace Scientists and Engineers of Bangalore

*

R Guruprasad1, P Marimuthu2

1

Scientist, Knowledge and Technology Management Division, CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore.

2

Additional Professor, Dept. of Bio-Statistics, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore.

Abstract: Publications are the conduit or channel through which scientists communicate their findings with the rest of the world. Most importantly, the process of publication gives the scientist feedback on his or her work. The process of publishing a scientific paper constitutes a long process. Importantly, publications are vital to a scientist's career for two important reasons, firstly, when Universities or R&D Organizations are looking for new Scientists or Professors, they base their decision on the amount of important papers that he or she have published; and, secondly, research costs money, and the funding agencies or scientific organizations who give a scientist the money to do his or her research work greatly rely on their publications as a measure of how much they have accomplished with the money they've been given. It is also seen that, Publication is vital to science as a whole. One of the corner-stone of the scientific process itself is the free exchange of information. As long as everyone publishes their results, Science progresses forward: if someone publishes a new finding, other scientists can use that information to expand their own work and build upon the new findings, rather than every scientist having to do every experiment independently. Similarly, publication is essential for each scientist, because the review process gives the researcher a broader view of the work, and often suggests fruitful paths that the scientist may not have otherwise taken. Taking this publications process in its entire gamut, there are many factors that play an important role in a Scientists’ or an Engineer’s choice in publishing papers in journals, [1].

(2)

[Not Uniformly Distributed], finally, (iv) The 2

for ‘Online Submission Facility’ and the different types of aerospace organizations have significant association (Chi-Square=67.961, P = 0.015). Hence the percentage of preference for the ‘Online Submission Facility’ and the different type aerospace organizations are not approximately the same [Not Uniformly Distributed]

1. Introduction

It is crucial that publication of research work is essential in order to advance science. It is also essential for people pursuing a scientific career. Their recognition as researchers depends on their publications and contributions to scientific progress. It is seen that, scientists live in a culture of “publish or perish”. Researchers should learn not only how to write a scientific paper, but also how to get it published. Scientific journals have technical requirements, and authors should make themselves familiar with these requirements. Researchers deserve to have the credit for their work, but only if they have contributed intellectually to it. Ethical standards apply to scientific publication and should be observed by authors, and ensured by editors.

For the scientist himself, publication is a way that a scientist or engineer can communicate his findings with the rest of the world. The process of publication gives the scientist feedback on his or her work. Also, publishing brings in two additional gains to a scientists’ career for two specific reasons, firstly, any researcher is valued on the amount of papers he has published, and secondly, publication itself is a measure of how much scientists’ have accomplished with the funding they have been given. For the entire mankind, science progresses forward if everyone published their results. One of the cornerstones to scientific progress is the free exchange of information. Scientists can use the new finding published by others to expand their own work and build upon the new findings. Knowledge is the property of the entire mankind. Hence, knowledge must be integrated because in that way it becomes greater, open to comparisons, criticism and improvement. Also, it avoids unnecessary research of already known facts [2].

2. Need for Scientists to Publish their Research

Much has been said and written on the need for research scientists to publish their results. The reasons for not publishing may change during a scientist's career or may vary with each study and data set. All scientists must publish their work. The research was never really conducted if it is not published.

Scientific research is not complete until the results have been published. A scientific paper is an essential part of the research process. The writing of an accurate, understandable paper is just as important as the research itself. In other words, the words in the paper should be weighed as carefully as the reagents in the laboratory. Hence, it is important that the scientist must know how to use words. Therefore, the education of a scientist is not complete until the ability to publish has been established,

[3], [4].

(3)

are fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. However, the process of scientific publication creates a mindset that is vital for science to progress [5].

It is also seen that the usefulness of scientific knowledge is limited if that knowledge is not communicated to other people. Scientists often communicate their research results in three general ways. One is to publish their results in peer-reviewed journals that can be ready by other scientists. Two is to present their results at national and international conferences where other scientists can listen to presentations. Scientists also present their results to certain departments at universities. Third, scientists publish about their work in popular media, such as magazines, newspapers, and blogs.

The main ways that scientists communicate research results is by publishing the results in journals. Journals are archived and can be read by other people in the future. Some journals are peer-reviewed, meaning they only publish articles that pass a certain standard of quality -- peer-reviewed journals are usually for a specific audience, such as other scientists. Publications give scientists the most long-lasting and widespread audience. A recent movement in journal publishing is called open-access. Open-access journals no longer charge readers with subscription fees, meaning anyone with Internet access can read these journals.

The second most common way for scientists to communicate their research results is to present the results at various conferences. Conferences can range from dozen to tens of thousands of attendees. Conferences are places where scientists not only share their latest research findings, but also network with other scientists for the purposes of collaboration, or teamwork. They are also places where scientists share about research mysteries and get advice from each other about how to solve those problems. Conferences bring together scientists of all ages, allowing the younger scientists to connect with older, more established scientists.

Thirdly, scientists not only want to inform their colleagues about their latest results, but may also want to communicate new data to the public. Popular media outlets are read by more people than peer-reviewed journals, and provide a wider audience. Magazines, such as Scientific American, and National Geographic; newspapers, such as The New York Times; and television stations, such as CNN, provide much more exposure than a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists now also publish about their work on blog sites [6].

Hence, it is imperative that Scientists must share their findings in order for other researchers to expand and build upon their discoveries. Collaboration with other scientists—when planning, conducting, and analyzing results—are all important for scientific research.

2. Review of Literature

(4)

papers are available online as soon as they are published, free of charge and most restrictions on access or use, [7].

The authors emphasize that scientists must publish. It is said that a good research work is not really finished until you have written and published it, so it is available to a larger audience. This is how science evolves. Results must be communicated and discussed with the rest of the scientific community to be validated or refuted. Moreover, they need to be shared with the rest of society because science should benefit us all. However, the authors point out that, useful research is often locked inside institutions, published as internal reports only. Other interesting results lie in libraries as thesis and monographs, out of the reach of the scientific community. In many cases, this knowledge takes too long come to light, if it is ever published as regular articles [8].

Before the internet, peer-reviewed journals and researchers had a happy symbiosis: scientists had no way of getting their best scientific results to the largest audience possible, and journals could perform that service while making a bit of profit. Now, that symbiosis has turned into parasitism: peer-reviewed journals actively prevent the best scientific results from being disseminated, siphoning off time and money that would be better spent doing other things. The funny thing is, somehow we’ve been convinced that this parasite is doing us a favor, and that we can’t survive any other way, [9].

For many years, publishing the results of scientific research was a symbiotic interaction between researchers and publishers, because the most effective way scientists could disseminate their results was through journals, produced by professional societies and independent publishers. Today the electronic medium and electronic communication has opened up new ways to distribute such results and is forcing researchers and publishers to re-examine the old procedures and consider new possibilities as we unravel the mysteries of the Internet and learn to use it. Now, not only can authors easily disseminate their research results, but networked readers can have cheap and fast access to more scientific literature and that too, have it in a form that facilitates its use in their own research. Because the electronic medium offers many potential improvements to enhance traditional publication, scientists, administrators, and federal science policymakers must reconsider both as to how the results of publicly funded research are best disseminated and how that dissemination is best supported [10].

The authors make the underlying assumption that scientific information is an economic commodity, and that scientific journals are a medium for its dissemination and exchange. While this exchange system differs from a conventional market in many senses, including the nature of payments, it shares the goal of transferring the commodity (knowledge) from its producers (scientists) to its consumers (other scientists, administrators, physicians, patients, and funding agencies). The function of this system has major consequences. Idealists may be offended that research be compared to widgets, but realists will acknowledge that journals generate revenue; publications are critical in drug development and marketing and to attract venture capital; and publishing defines successful scientific careers [11].

(5)

publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments [12].

The authors discuss in detail in their book that, good scientific writing is not a matter of life and death; it is much more serious than that. They argue in saying that the goal of scientific research is publication. Scientists, starting as graduate students or even earlier, are measured primarily not by their dexterity in laboratory manipulations, not by their innate knowledge or either broad or narrow scientific subjects, and certainly not by their wit or charm; they are measured and become known (or remain unknown) by their publications, They further corroborate their study in saying that, a scientific experiment, no matter how spectacular the results, is not complete until the results are published. They emphasize that the cornerstone of philosophy of science is based on the fundamental assumption that original research must be published; only thus can new scientific knowledge be authenticated and then added to the existing database that we all call scientific knowledge, [13].

The author inter-alia quotes Robert Merton, [14], that good scientific practice includes the sharing of scientific results with others. Scientists have to contribute to the scientific stock of knowledge, since academic science is communal, [15]. Also, according to Merton’s norm of communalism, academic scientists have an obligation to publish their results. He also adds that the peer-review system plays an important part in the scientific endeavour. It confers reliability on scientific knowledge, because independent peers have tested it. He also adds that science rests on organized skepticism, [16].

5. CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore and Allied Aerospace Organizations in Bangalore: The Scope of the Present Study

The National Aerospace Laboratories is India’s premier civil aviation R&D aerospace research organization in the country. Its main mandate is the ‘Development of aerospace technologies with a strong science content, design and build small and medium – sized civil aircraft, and support all national aerospace programmes. NAL is also required ‘to use its aerospace technology base for general industrial applications’. ‘Technology’ would be its core engine-driver for the future. NAL is also best known for its main sophisticated aerospace R&D testing facilities which are not only unique for this country but also comparable to similar facilities elsewhere in the world.

Sixteen prominent aerospace organizations of Bangalore were selected for this research study (See Table 1), and many of these aerospace organizations come under the broad umbrella of (i) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), (ii) Defense Research and Development Organizations (DRDO), (iii) The Indian Air Force (IAF), (iv) Educational Institutions like IISc, and (v) Major public sector undertakings and (vi) The Department of Space. All of them in their own way have significantly contributed to a large number of Indian aerospace programmes.

6. Null Hypotheses

 There is no association between the ‘Impact Factor’ and its Percentage Criteria, viz. 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% and the 16 aerospace organizations.

(6)

 There is no association between the ‘Speed of Peer Review’ and its Percentage Criteria, viz. 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% and the 16 aerospace organizations.

 There is no association between the ‘Online Submission Facility’ and its Percentage Criteria, viz. 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% and the 16 aerospace organizations.

7. Objectives of the Study

 To determine whether there is significant association of ‘Impact Factor’, ‘Acceptance Criteria’, ‘Speed of Peer Review’ and ‘Online Submission Facility’ and its Percentage Criteria, viz. 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% among the aerospace scientists and engineers of Bangalore.

 To see whether the ‘Impact Factor’, ‘Acceptance Criteria’, ‘Speed of Peer Review’ and ‘Online Submission Facility’ as Scientists’ Choice for Publishing Papers are uniformly distributed in the present study.

8. Materials and Methods

The present study is restricted to the selected 16 prominent aerospace organizations in Bangalore. A total number of 650 survey questionnaires were distributed amongst the aerospace scientists and engineers belonging to these 16 aerospace organizations. A total number of 612 questionnaires were received back finally 583 (89.7%) were selected for the study which were found suitable for the study. A survey questionnaire has been used to conduct this research study. The total population size of this research study is restricted to the 1220 aerospace scientists and engineers in Bangalore. The distribution of Source Data is indicated in Table 1. The investigator also divided the whole population of the study into two major categories: namely, aerospace scientists and engineers. It may be seen from Table 2, that out of 583 respondents, 295 (50.6%) are aerospace scientists and the remaining 288(49.4%) are aerospace engineers. A Sample Questionnaire Distribution Pattern used in the Survey is indicated in Table 3. And, finally, ‘Factor’s Deciding Scientists’ Choice for Publishing Papers in E-Journals’ is illustrated in Table 4, with the necessary statistical inferences. Random sampling technique has been used for selection of the sample size.

9. Results and Discussion

Summary of Total Scores for the Frequency of ‘Factors Deciding Scientists’ Choice for Publishing Papers in E-Journals’.

Impact Factor

(7)

Acceptance Criteria

It is seen that out of the 583 respondents amongst the 16 aerospace organizations, a total of 227 respondents have chosen 25% as the percentage criteria amounting to 38.9% of the total sample population. This is followed by 210 respondents who have opted for 75% as the percentage criteria amounting to 36.0% of the total sample population. This is followed by 90 respondents who have opted for 50% as the percentage criteria aggregating 15.4% of the total sample population. Finally, 56 respondents have opted for 100% as the percentage criteria representing 9.6% of the total sample population.

Speed of Peer Review

It is seen that out of the 583 respondents amongst the 16 aerospace organizations, a total of 238 respondents have opted for 25% as the percentage criteria amounting to 40.8% of the total sample population. This is followed by 154 who have chosen 75% as the percentage criteria and aggregating 26.40 % of the total sample population. This is followed by 111 respondents who have chosen 50% as the percentage criteria representing 19.0% of the total sample population. Finally, 80 respondents have opted for 100% as the percentage criteria reflecting 13.70% of the total sample population.

Online Submission Facility

It is seen that out of the 583 respondents amongst the 16 aerospace organizations, a 255 respondents have opted for 25% as the percentage criteria amounting to 43.7% of the total sample population. This is followed by 140 respondents who have chosen 100% as the percentage criteria and scoring 24.0% of the total sample population. A total of 133 respondents have opted for 75% as the percentage criteria and accumulating 22.8% of the total sample size. Finally, 55 respondents have chosen 50% as the percentage criteria and aggregating 9.4% of the total sample size.

10. Conclusions

Publications are the conduit or channel through which scientists communicate their findings with the rest of the world. It appears that the ability to publish rapidly seems to be a primary advantage of the electronic medium for the aerospace scientists and engineers, where research and discovery moves at a rapid pace.

The main conclusions of this research study that the authors would like to present are:

 Chi Square: The 2 test indicates that the ‘Impact Factor’ and the different types of aerospace organizations have significant association (Chi-Square=95.991, P = 0.000). Hence the percentage of preference for ‘Impact Factor’ and the different types aerospace organizations are not approximately the same [Not Uniformly Distributed]

 Chi Square: The 2 test indicates that the ‘Acceptance Criteria’ and the different types of aerospace organizations have significant association (Chi-Square=76.536, P = 0.002). Hence the percentage of preference for the ‘Acceptance Criteria’ and the different type aerospace organizations are not approximately the same [Not Uniformly Distributed]

(8)

percentage of preference for the ‘Speed of Peer Review’ and the different type aerospace organizations are not approximately the same [Not Uniformly Distributed]

 Chi Square: The 2 test indicates that the ‘Online Submission Facility’ and the different types of aerospace organizations have significant association (Chi-Square=67.961, P = 0.015). Hence the percentage of preference for the ‘Online Submission Facility’ and the different types aerospace organizations are not approximately the same [Not Uniformly Distributed]

11. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Director, NAL and Head, KTMD for their support.

12. References

1. Onken, M. and WashU (1997), ‘Why Do Scientists Publish results of their work in Scientific Journals?’ http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-12/876188567.Ot.r.html, MadSci Network, Washington University Medical School, 1997.

2. https://leestreet.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/why-do-scientists-publish-their-results-in-scientific-journals/

3. Skousen, J., (2000), ‘Publish or Perish: Some Reasons for Perishing’, Crop-Soil Science-Agronomy News, (http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/landrec/publish.htm).

4. Day, R. A., (1982), ‘How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper’, Second Edition, ISI Press.

5. Sherman, D. University of Bristol (2014), “ Why-is-it-important-for-researchers-and-scientists-to-publish- their-work”, http://www.quora.com.

6. Nguyen, D. H., (2014), ‘Three Ways for Scientists to Communicate their results of Scientific Research’, http://classroom.synonym.com/three-ways-scientists-communicate-results-scientific-research-14628.html

7. Shelton, V., (2005), ‘Scientific Research: The Publication Dilemma’, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, http://www.istl.org/05-spring/article1.html, DOI:10.5062/F4668B40.

8. Velasco, G., et al., ‘Scientists Must Publish’, Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 1(1): i.

9. Pickrell, J., (2011), ‘Why Publish Science in Peer Reviewed Journals’,

http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/07/why-publish-science-in-peer-reviewed-journals.php

10. Bachrach, S., et al., (1998), ‘Who Should own Scientific Papers?’, Science, 281(5382), 1459-1460, DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5382.1459

(9)

12. Fanelli, D., (2010), ‘Do Pressure to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias: An Empirical Support from US States Data’, PLoS ONE 5(4): e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.

13. Day, R. and Gastel, B., (2012, 7th Edition), ‘How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper’, Cambridge University Press, www.cambridge.org/9781107670747.

14. Merton, R. K., (1942), ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’, Journal of Legal and Political Psychology, 1, 115-26.

15. Ziman, J. (2000), ‘Real Science’, Cambridge University Press.

16. Daniel, D.H., (2005), ‘Publications as a Measure of Scientific Advancement and Scientists’ Productivity, Learned Publishing’, 18, 143-148.

3. King, D.W., P.B. Boyce, C.H. Montgomery, and C. Tenopir. (2003). Library economic

metrics: examples of the comparison of electronic and print journal collections and collection services. Library Trends, (3), 376-400.

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table-1: Distribution of Source Data (Sample Size)

Sl.No. Organizations No. of

Questionnaires distributed

No. of

Questionnaires received

No. of usable questionnaires usable

1. ADA 67 63 58

2. AFTC 19 16 15

3. ADE 14 12 12

4. ASTE 33 30 29

5. CABS 16 15 14

6. CEMILAC 33 30 29

7. C-MMACS 8 6 6

8. DARE 11 9 9

9. LRDE 5 3 2

10. GTRE 24 22 21

11. HAL 144 140 134

12. IAM 40 36 33

13. ISRO-ISTRAC 25 24 22

14. IISc 38 37 34

15. JNCASR 5 3 1

16. NAL 168 166 164

(10)

Geographical Boundary of the Study (16 Prominent Aerospace Organizations of Bangalore, INDIA).

Key: ADA=Aeronautical Development Agency, AFTC=Air Force Technical College,

ADE=Aeronautical Development Establishment, ASTE=Aircraft Systems Testing Establishment,

CABS=Centre for Airborne Systems, CEMILAC=Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification,

C-MMACS=Centre for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation, DARE=Defense Avionics Research Establishment, LRDE=Electronics and Radar Development Establishment, GTRE=Gas Turbine Research Establishment, HAL=Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, IAM=Institute of Aerospace Medicine, ISRO-ISTRAC=Indian Space Research Organization, IISc=Indian Institute of Science,

JNCASR=Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, NAL=National Aerospace Laboratories.

Table-2: Profile of the Respondents (Category-Wise Distribution)

Sl. No.

Organizations

Categories

Organization Wise, Total No. of Respondents

% of Total Sample Aerospace

Scientist

Aerospace Engineer

1 ADA 39 19 58 9.9

2 AFTC 0 15 15 2.6

3 ADE 12 0 12 2.1

4 ASTE 2 27 29 5.0

5 CABS 13 1 14 2.4

6 CEMILAC 26 3 29 5.0

7 C-MMACS 2 4 6 1.0

8 DARE 7 2 9 1.5

9 LRDE 2 0 2 0.3

10 GTRE 12 9 21 3.6

11 HAL 3 131 134 23.0

12 IAM 30 3 33 5.7

13 ISRO-ISTRAC 5 17 22 3.8

14 IISc 21 13 34 5.8

15 JNCASR 1 0 1 0.2

16 NAL 120 44 164 28.1

Total for all

Organizations 295 288 583

100.0 Percent for all

Organizations (50.6) (49.4) (100.0)

Chi-Square 278.811

P Value 0.000

(11)

Table-3: Which of the following factors decide your choice for publishing your paper in e-journals? Sl.QW

No.

Factor 100% 75% 50% 25%

(1) Impact factor

(2) Acceptance criteria

(3) Speed of Peer review

(4) Online submission facility

(5) Any other, Please

Specify:________________

_______________________

Table-4: Factors Deciding Choice for Publishing Papers in e-Journals

SN Organiz ations

Percentage Criteria

Organizati on Wise, Total No.

of Responden

ts

% of Total Sample

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

1 ADA

Impact Factor 7 17 12 22 58 9.9

(12.1) (29.3) (20.7) (37.9)

Acceptance

Criteria 7 18 10 23 58 9.9

(12.1) (31.0) (17.2) (39.7)

Speed of Peer

Review 8 16 11 23 58 9.9

(13.8) (27.6) (19.0) (39.7)

Online Submission

Facility

15 13 7 23 58 9.9

(25.9) (22.4) (12.1) (39.7)

2 AFTC

Impact Factor 1 3 2 9 15 2.6

(6.7) (20.0) (13.3) (60.0)

Acceptance

Criteria 0 4 3 8 15 2.6

(12)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

Speed of Peer

Review 0 4 5 6 15 2.6

(0.0) (26.7) (33.3) (40.0)

Facility

2 1 3 9 15 2.6

(13.3) (6.7) (20.0) (60.0)

3 ADE

Impact Factor 1 4 1 6 12 2.1

(8.3) (33.3) (8.3) (50.0)

Acceptance

Criteria 1 4 1 6 12 2.1

(8.3) (33.3) (8.3) (50.0)

Speed of Peer

Review 3 2 2 5 12 2.1

(25.0) (16.7) (16.7) (41.7)

Facility

3 3 0 6 12 2.1

(25.0) (25.0) (0.0) (50.0)

4 ASTE

Impact Factor 5 6 2 16 29 5.0

(17.2) (20.7) (6.9) (55.2)

Acceptance

Criteria 3 5 3 18 29 5.0

(10.3) (17.2) (10.3) (62.1)

Speed of Peer

Review 0 5 4 20 29 5.0

(0.0) (17.2) (13.8) (69.0)

Facility

2 4 3 20 29 5.0

(6.9) (13.8) (10.3) (69.0)

5 CABS

Impact Factor 1 6 2 5 14 2.4

(7.1) (42.9) (14.3) (35.7)

Acceptance

(13)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

(0.0) (50.0) (21.4) (28.6)

Speed of Peer

Review 1 6 3 4 14 2.4

(7.14) (42.86) (21.43) (28.57)

Facility

4 4 2 4 14 2.4

(28.6) (28.6) (14.3) (28.6)

6 CEMILA

C

Impact Factor 3 7 1 18 29 5.0

(10.3) (24.1) (3.4) (62.1)

Acceptance

Criteria 2 11 4 12 29 5.0

(6.9) (37.9) (13.8) (41.4)

Speed of Peer

Review 1 6 3 19 29 5.0

(3.4) (20.7) (10.3) (65.5)

Facility

2 7 1 19 29 5.0

(6.9) (24.1) (3.4) (65.5)

7

C-MMAC

S

Impact Factor 3 2 0 1 6 1.0

(50.0) (33.3) (0.0) (16.7)

Acceptance

Criteria 1 3 1 1 6 1.0

(16.7) (50.0) (16.7) (16.7)

Speed of Peer

Review 2 2 2 0 6 1.0

(33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (0.0)

Facility

4 2 0 0 6 1.0

(66.7) (33.3) (0.0) (0.0)

8 DARE Impact Factor 2 3 0 4 9 1.5

(14)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

Acceptance

Criteria 0 1 4 4 9 1.5

(0.0) (11.1) (44.4) (44.4)

Speed of Peer

Review 2 1 2 4 9 1.5

(22.2) (11.1) (22.2) (44.4)

Facility

1 3 2 3 9 1.5

(11.1) (33.3) (22.2) (33.3)

9 LRDE

Impact Factor 0 1 1 0 2 0.3

(0.0) (50.0) (50.0) (0.0)

Acceptance

Criteria 1 0 1 0 2 0.3

(50.0) (0.0) (50.0) (0.0)

Speed of Peer

Review 1 1 0 0 2 0.3

(50.0) (50.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Facility

1 1 0 0 2 0.3

(50.0) (50.0) (0.0) (0.0)

10 GTRE

Impact Factor 3 8 3 7 21 3.6

(14.3) (38.1) (14.3) (33.3)

Acceptance

Criteria 2 8 5 6 21 3.6

(9.5) (38.1) (23.8) (28.6)

Speed of Peer

Review 3 11 1 6 21 3.6

(14.3) (52.4) (4.8) (28.6)

Facility

6 6 3 6 21 3.6

(28.6) (28.6) (14.3) (28.6)

(15)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

(6.0) (19.4) (14.2) (60.4)

Acceptance

Criteria 6 34 19 75 134 23.0

(4.5) (25.4) (14.2) (56.0)

Speed of Peer

Review 12 25 25 72 134 23.0

(9.0) (18.7) (18.7) (53.7)

Facility

23 26 10 75 134 23.0

(17.2) (19.4) (7.5) (56.0)

12

IAM

Impact Factor 7 8 2 16 33 5.7

(21.2) (24.2) (6.1) (48.5)

Acceptance

Criteria 2 11 8 12 33 5.7

(6.1) (33.3) (24.2) (36.4)

Speed of Peer

Review 3 7 8 15 33 5.7

(9.1) (21.2) (24.2) (45.5)

Facility

6 8 2 17 33 5.7

(18.2) (24.2) (6.1) (51.5)

13

ISRO-ISTRAC

Impact Factor 3 6 3 10 22 3.8

(13.6) (27.3) (13.6) (45.5)

Acceptance

Criteria 2 10 3 7 22 3.8

(9.1) (45.5) (13.6) (31.8)

Speed of Peer

Review 7 4 5 6 22 3.8

(31.8) (18.2) (22.7) (27.3)

Facility

8 4 3 7 22 3.8

(16)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

14 IISc

Impact Factor 16 11 2 5 34 5.8

(47.1) (32.4) (5.9) (14.7)

Acceptance

Criteria 5 17 4 8 34 5.8

(14.7) (50.0) (11.8) (23.5)

Speed of Peer

Review 7 14 5 8 34 5.8

(20.6) (41.2) (14.7) (23.5)

Facility

14 7 2 11 34 5.8

(41.2) (20.6) (5.9) (32.4)

15 JNCASR

Impact Factor 0 0 0 1 1 0.2

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0)

Acceptance

Criteria 0 1 0 0 1 0.2

(0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Speed of Peer

Review 0 1 0 0 1 0.2

(0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0)

Facility

0 0 0 1 1 0.2

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0)

16 NAL

Impact Factor 43 50 23 48 164 28.1

(26.20 (30.50 (14.0) (29.3)

Acceptance

Criteria 24 76 21 43 164 28.1

(14.6) (46.30 (12.8) (26.2)

Speed of Peer

Review 30 49 35 50 164 28.1

(18.3) (29.9) (21.3) (30.5)

Facility

49 44 17 54 164 28.1

(17)

of Responden

ts

Factors 100% 75% 50% 25%

(A) Impact Factor

Total for all

Organizations 103 158 73 249 583 100.0

Percent for all

Organizations (17.7) (27.1) (12.5) (42.7) (100.0)

Chi-Square

95.991

P Value 0.000

(B)

Accept ance Criteria

Total for all

Organizations 56 210 90 227 583 100.0

Percent for all

Organizations (9.6) (36.0) (15.4) (38.9) (100.0)

Chi-Square

76.536

P Value 0.002

(C)

Speed of Peer Review

Total for all

Organizations 80 154 111 238 583 100.0

Percent for all

Organizations (13.70) (26.40 (19.0) (40.8) (100.0)

Chi-Square

81.694

P Value 0.001

(D)

Online Submis sion Facility

Total for all Organizations

140 133 55 255 583

100.0

Percent for all

Organizations (24.0) (22.8) (9.4) (43.7) (100.0)

Chi-Square

67.961

P Value 0.015

(18)

About the Authors

Dr Ramachandran Guruprasad received his MLIS degree from Annamalai University (1994), MSc in Information Technology from Karnataka State Open University (2006) and a Ph.D. Degree in Library and Information from the University of Mysore (2010). He has two international books to his credit, several book chapters, international conference presentations and national and international journal publications. His areas of interest and specialization include: analyzing the ‘Use Patterns of Electronic Information Resources among Scientists, Engineers and Technologists’, ‘Digital Content Management’, ‘Digital Video Archiving’. He is the recipient of three national awards, namely: (a) Education ExpoTV (EET-CRS), Special Mention Certificate in the Category of ‘Excellence in Research’, (b) ‘Scientist of the Year 2013’ from the National Environmental Science Academy (NESA), New Delhi and (c) Education ExpoTV (EET-CRS) ‘Award for Excellence in Technology Research’ in the category of Technology Leadership Awards.